AMAR PRASAD BARAU Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has moved against an order of the Revenue Minister, dated 23 -9 -52, and also against two subsequent orders following in the wake of that order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Nowgong, dated 31 -12 -52 and 5 -3 -53.

(2.) THE facts stated in the petition are that dag No. 1119 was held under an annual patta by respondent No. 5, daughter of respondent No. 6. This land was, under some verbal arrangement, given to the petitioner for the purpose of building a residential house and tea stall. The petitioner says that he was in occupation of the land as a permissive tenant and he used to cater to the needs of the passengers travelling on the Gauhati - -Nowgong road.

(3.) THE above arguments are not without substance. The application, however, in my opinion, cannot be sustained in view, of the fact that the petitioner has not been able to establish any legal right to maintain such an application and to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction under this Article for the protection thereof. He himself states in his petition that he was holding under some verbal arrangement from the opposite party No. 5 or 6 who are the actual pattadars, and that his occupation of the land was merely that of a permissive tenant. Such a tenant could be turned out at any moment.